We can get going. There we go. Well, good evening, everybody. Welcome to the Adanna City Council meeting. It is Wednesday, October 22nd, 2025, it's 7.02 PM. And as director Benaride indicated, we're continuing to do these meetings on a hybrid basis, just as we did during COVID in this post COVID era. Folks can watch meetings at home and at appropriate times, whether it's public comment or if we have public hearings can call in and participate remotely. And I think that's a good thing and it's a practice we're gonna continue, at least for the foreseeable future. And we'll probably call on folks in the audience first when we get to those portions of the agenda that involve public input. So having provided that information, redundant to what director Benaride has already done, I'm gonna call the meeting to order and ask our clerk Sharon Ellison to call the roll. Clerk Allison. Council Member Agnew. Here. Council Member Jackson. Here. Council Member Pierce. Here. Council Member Risser. Here. Mayor Houplin. Here. Next is the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge Allegiance Allegiance is applied to the United States or America. And to the report about the privilege of science, formation, and about the individual with the leadership of the arts as well. Thank you everybody for that. Good way to start a meeting. We've got a meeting agenda that's been published to the public in advance of our session this evening and published to the council as well. Is there anyone on the council or from a staff standpoint that wishes to modify the agenda in any form or fashion? Hearing nothing, is there a motion to adopt the meeting agenda as published? So moved. I second. Member Jackson moves. Council Member Agnew seconds the adoption of the meeting agenda is published. Any further discussion on that issue? All those in favor of adopting the meeting agenda is published, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. The meeting agenda is adopted. And now we are at community comment, which both Director Benarot and I talked about. And we're going to go to folks in the audience first. And just a reminder, you have three minutes. You'll get a yellow warning light when you have 30 seconds or so to go. I want to treat everybody equally. And remember, if it's something on the agenda this evening or scheduled for future public hearing, you cannot address the topic in public comment. So make sure that it's not on the agenda this evening. And then we welcome folks to come forward and address the council, any matter as if a concern to them. Thank you, good evening. My name is Jan Dalkelzel. I've been here before. I didn't want you to forget about me. But seriously, I wanted to thank you for the attention that you have paid to the issue we've been paying. Give us your address too, Jan Dalkel. No, no, no, no, she said no. All right. OK. We're going with the speaker cards. Sorry, I was thinking about something else. Sorry. Yeah, it's OK. That's OK. I'm the oldest one here. I'm a slow learner up here. No, I wanted to say. I'm the remedial mayor. Thank you for those of you. And I know it's the majority of you who have either been over to our building to meet with us about the lack of lighting after the removal of the lights in the Grandview Square area. And I also want to know some of you have driven through the area at night. I believe there's a consensus that it's dark and that there should be more light. Now, the question is how much and where. I know the mayor, you sent me an email saying that you had been through and realized that the park was very dark. And here I have the map of the area. The park, there's one light now on the side of the park that faces the library. You were suggesting three on the other sets. That would be great. Believe me, the dog walkers would love it. They have been telling me, I can't pick up dog poop when it's dark, you know. So that's part of it. There's also the safety issue. Some people are very concerned about some loitering that's been seen. So the more important thing for us, though, is the lighting along the side of 5225 Grandview Square. The green dots are really the trees, but they all happen to be very similar to where the lights were before they were removed. And that's where we would like to see some lights put back again. It's important because that area has parking spots. It has curbs. People getting out of cars are going to be tripping over those curbs. And we certainly don't want to see anyone getting hurt there. We were, in retrospect, there should have been a meeting before those lights were taken off. Obviously, there wasn't. And now we're trying to make do with what's left. However, we can still have a meeting to determine how many more lights there should be and where they should be placed. And I'd like to request that we do that as soon as possible. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. It's a fair summary, I think, of what we're thinking about, too. OK. Thank you. Good, thank you. David Frankel, my concern is the proposed tunnel under France Avenue. I've looked through a variety of documents. I don't see ADA mentioned anywhere. In reference to anything, except for a little animated video on the east side of the proposed tunnel, it doesn't even come close to being ADA compliant. There has to be more attention paid to ADA. Minnesota, the dean is a member and the city managers on the board of directors of the League of Minnesota Cities. They have a web page. I'm sure the manager is familiar with. It's called Letter of the Law, incorporating ADA standards into contracts. One of the bold items is construction. Contracts should have ADA compliance in them. Architectural design, there should be agreements. It's the my stuff. It's Minnesota League of Cities. We send people to those meetings. It should be familiar with these contracts and what's required. And I've emailed this to city staff and the city council numerous times. National League of Cities were committed to data and evidence in decision making. I have not seen any data or evidence about this proposed tunnel. I've heard it's a dangerous crossing. Where's the data behind dangerous? Where's the evidence behind dangerous? I was just out biking today in the dining of Minneapolis. I had a number of near misses on busy streets. What makes this intersection more dangerous than every other dangerous intersection in roadway and edina? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Frankle. Anyone else in the audience? We should address the council on a matter of concern to them. Oh, good evening. Good evening. Hello. Won't introduce myself. I'm here to follow up on a topic that I raised on the September 16th City Council meeting. I apologize. I wasn't able to make the last council meeting, but I did see that City Manager Neil indicated that his team would bring back a package of ordinance changes that would address the appeals process regarding the tree protection ordinance. I would like to understand if the city manager can provide more insight as to what those changes might entail. Additionally, I'd like to thank Council Member Jackson for a phone call that we had a few weeks ago, where we discussed several alternative paths for consideration. With your permission, I'd like to reiterate some of those. So we discussed three different options. One that we be permitted to plant two trees from the Hennepin County list of acceptable trees on our property. Those trees would be of our choosing and not necessarily subject to the diameter requirements of the current ordinance. And this was the path that I originally laid out to the council at the meeting on the 16th. Two that we paid to plant trees of sufficient diameter to meet the current ordinance selected from the city or the Hennepin County list of acceptable trees elsewhere in the city, where the city would be responsible to identify and coordinate the locations. And we would have no responsibility for the survival of those trees after planting. Or three that a variance or provision be added to the ordinance based on the preserve trees relative to the lot area, i.e., if the property owner preserves x inches of trees at diameter, that breast height per 1,000 square feet of lot area, they may be exempted from the ordinance. We also did reach out to our arborists. She was unable to provide us with a recommendation for tree vendors. She again reinforced her recommendation that we start with smaller trees. Of the three vendors that were recommended, one does not provide any options for or only sells to commercial and municipal buyers. The other did provide options that fit the use. And then the third only sells trees and diameters of five to nine inches, which are very large trees. And they do not offer shipping or any planting assistance with those either. So just like to keep this topic in front of mind for those of you on the council, and appreciate your feedback. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Anyone else in the audience? OK. Do we have anybody online that wishes to address the council? OK. Our practice is to take the comments we added to prior city council meeting and analyze them from a staff standpoint and provide answers online by the end of that week where a council meeting is held. And then also, manager Neil will provide verbal information with regard to those comments from the prior city council meeting that we're concerned of residents, and we'll address those at this point in time. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. As you'll recall, we had a lot of questions at our last council meeting on October 7th. There are seven responses. They were all included on our website. The first question was regarding the Grandview Square lighting. In our response, we said we would add one more light in the mid block area. I think it sounds like we're going to revisit that and have some additional discussion on what's necessary and what's desirable there. The second question was, was the Roslyn Park Pet Bridge recently hit again? Yes, it was. It was hit again by a vehicle. To our knowledge, we don't know if that vehicle was ever caught. But structural engineers from MnDOT reviewed the structural integrity of the bridge and said it was OK to continue using it. So we are. Question number three, is it true there's a golf ball test for bridges over railroads? And it turns out there really isn't a golf ball test. There is a maximum gap of four inches on mesh. And our staff tells me that they're confident that that standard, the four inch standard is present on the Grandview Pet Bridge. Question number four was, how was the Minnesota Council on Disability Involved in Design Review of the Grandview Petestrian Bridge? They were not involved in the design. They were asked to provide an opinion after the Department of Justice Inquiry. Question number five, this question was about the ECMO truck. Still in Fire Station number one. Why is it there? The ECMO truck has a vehicle lease agreement that governs its use between the city and the University of Minnesota. We have an agreement with them to house this truck. And we are housing it in station one. It doesn't displace another so we don't have a truck sitting outside that would be in that spot. And we have an agreement with them that governs how and when we get and we get paid for it as well. Question number six was, what is the Fair Department's data collection and analysis software and how is it being used? The Fire Department uses a number of different software systems that collect data. The analysis software we use is called ECHO Data Analytics and it analyzes fire specific data. Staff evaluates this data to inform operational decisions, call volumes, response times, overlapping incidents, et cetera. Finally, question number seven. Why do mapping applications show two or more Fire Station twos in a DINA? Right now there are two Fire Station number twos. One is operational and one is not. But as we all know, we are flipping that. And the operational Fire Station number two will begin after the dedication event. And after October 30th, the city will update its Google business listing to make sure the public knows there is only one Fire Station two and where it is. Thank you. Yeah, good. Those are a flurry of questions. Thank you. Thanks for those responses. I think prompt anything from council members in terms of inquiry. Member Risher. With the ADA concern regarding the tunnel, I too can't understand how that is ADA compliant, going up into the space that is supposed to be the east-west extension of the promenade that will run through the Macy's section. So I think it would be really important for us to have a very clear explanation of how the entire project is ADA compliant, not just the parts, like, you know, part of it going down to the tunnel, the tunnel sections. It's got to be the whole needs to be ADA compliant. So just wanted to say that. Sure. Thank you. Manager Neil Staff would agree that when we have prepared plans and specs that would provide that level of detail. But if we do, we need to make sure that that is the case and will. We're on the next phase of the assessment here and the analyzation of whether it makes any sense to do it. Right. If we ever get to that point, you're saying it will be ADA compliant. All right. Very good. Councilmember Jackson, I saw you turn this way. Were you wanting to comment at all? Okay. All right. Very good. Thanks, Manager Neil. And now we're going to go to the consent agenda. Did anyone in the council wish to pull anything off from the consent agenda? I did. I wanted to pull the lease agreement or the potential lease agreement with Hennepin County. I thought we should walk through that a little bit. Just for clarification purposes. And so folks in the general public knew too what we've been talking about with respect to a potential lease of space for a new art center on the second floor of the new Hennepin County library that will, it's under construction now. It'll be completed. We hope, I think estimated data completion is July 1st of 27. And so in conjunction with us potentially having a art center over there, we've got a form of lease that was delivered to us and negotiated. Excuse me. I don't know if I can turn that off. Sorry folks. So we've got a form, I think Tracy is back there from our. The consent agenda first and then. Park and Ricky, yeah, we can do can talk about that. So let's anybody else want to remove an air from the consent agenda? Okay. With the exception of 6.8, is there a motion to approve the balance of the items on the consent agenda of the single motion? So moved. I second. Good emotion by member Jackson. Second by member Pierce. You want to remember right now? Okay. Beat you to the draw. To adopt the items on the consent agenda with the exception item 6.8. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adopting the items on the consent agenda in a single motion with the exception of item 6.8 say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. Items on the consent agenda are adopted with the exception of 6.8. 6.8 is the one that I wanted to have pulled so we could talk about it a little bit. And Tracy, you want to come up here please. Just want to make sure that. I don't remember the cost of operating the existing arts center, but I know it's two or $300,000 a year that we've been. Expending I think over there. I just wanted to get a few of the key terms and conditions understood well on this proposed formal lease. So there's by my reading of it, there's 67,370 square feet over there. And we'd be leasing about a third of it. See here. About 15,000 square feet. Yes. Our base rent would be about 6,500 a month. And our additional rent would be about 10,000 a month. So our total rent obligation over there projected is about 16,700 per month. That's about 204,000 a year. 20 year lease. The tenant improvements are going to be done by the county. We'd reimburse them for those tenant improvements. We haven't essentially had to what those tenant improvements are going to cost. Obviously that's over the 20 year period. So in total, we have the total cost of the project. Okay. So those tenant improvements would be added to the base rent and the additional rent. That's the bait that'll cover. And then we'll have tenant improvements and we'll have FFNE and then some design fees. But the tenant, the lease covers the tenant improvements. Okay. We're going to be leasing 15,473 usable square feet. If it calculated that about 23% of the overall. Correct. And then there's some common space that we will share with Hennepin County that we will be able to access as well. Community rooms, lobby, walking area, the terrace, upper terrace. So we'd be responsible for about 23% of the operating expenses of the building based on that, which comes in the form of additional rent. Right. And so we'll negotiate that kind of similar to what we do at the senior center and Hennepin County. We'll do kind of a true up with some of our shared expenses. So is there some negotiating the left that you have to do or what are you looking for specifically from the council tonight? We're looking for you to approve the general lease that's before you. The other thing that would come before the council would be a separate MOU for the green space so we can have some shared, well have some shared expenses with that with mowing, snow plowing things. And that's more about lining who was responsible for what duties. Okay. And the other thing was it looked like the lease rate was good on the base rent was $5 a square foot, which, and then I think the increases that I saw in the chart were about. 25, no, 5% a year over 20 years on the increase in the rent, which seems like it's market rate. Are you comfortable with that? Yes, I think we're, I think we're very comfortable with that. In terms of the overall negotiation with the county and the terms and conditions that you agreed to from the staff level, you're confident that we're doing a good, we're making a good bargain here. I guess this is one way to put it. As we've discussed before, Mayor Council, I think this is the fiscal responsible matter to build a premier arts center in cooperation and partnership with Hennepin County and the library. I think it'll be a unique opportunity for us to bring arts back to the community and in a shared environment for youth adults. Okay. Other questions? Member Rucher. Is there going to be space where art will be hung on the walls in this area? Yes. Yes. Go ahead. We need to make sure that we're not just putting in plasterboard, we need to make sure that we're putting in plywood so that it can support heavy works. And so I just want to say that. We have planned for that both. Okay, good. We will have the gallery space which is specifically designed for that and then as well as any additional wall space in kind of our art space that we will have ownership to kind of decide what we want to do with with public art. Yeah. Member Rucher's wheel host. So that was good advice. No, they had to tear out the walls that they installed because they didn't do the proper ones when I did a gallery. So just a heads up. Let's not do that. Good advice. Yeah. All right. So we got a 20 year term with 5% increases for your 5 bucks a square foot starting out. Looks to me like it's going to cost us less with a brand new building than what we're paying out of maintaining the existing art center. Correct. And we would have had to put additional money in just to bring the current one up to code. So. Yeah. That's a good point too that we know that there were millions of dollars and upgrades that were required over there. And that's one of the reasons we looked at this opportunity with the county. Member Jackson, any comment? I'm just so excited about this. Every chance I can be excited. I will be. Thank you so much. I bet you're excited enough to move approval. I will move approval of item 6.8 with the lease with Hennepin County. Second. Member, eight new seconds. That motion. We get a motion and second to approve the lease agreement with Hennepin County for the Adriod Center. Any further conversation on that topic? All those in favor of proving the lease agreement with Hennepin County for the Dine Art Center based upon the lease agreement that's been prepared. Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. That's approved. And good luck with your end of your tail end of your negotiations there. All right. That completes items on the consent agenda and we've got some on the special recognitions and presentations portion of the agenda. We've got our annual report from the Exploridina and we've got Shelley Loberg here and some of the folks from the Exploridina community and the Chamber Board and welcome them up here to make this presentation to the to the council. Ms. Loberg. Welcome. Thank you. And manager Neal I didn't think you want to say in advance. I just wanted to introduce Shelley and let her know let people know she's the president of the Chamber of Commerce and explore Dina and a few years ago the city council asked asked her to an astrophite assessor to come do an annual presentation to the council about the fiscal and operational aspects of the organization and that's what she's here to do tonight. That's a rarity. See what you're doing now. See we've got some students here this evening as well. You guys want to stand up back there. No. No. Give us a shout out of what's what school you're here from or is it for scouts. Make school. All right. Good. Good to have you here. And you all live in the data. Or you just go to make school. This is one of the city council meetings you want to do attend. Okay. You picked a good one. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I think that would be good. Sure. I'm going to talk about the website. No, or in the, in a meeting with, with Miss. It could be both. I just when I look at it, I keep looking at events and it says that this is under. Work or whatever it's, it's not showing any. Thing. Oh, there's one page that's currently not operating correctly, but that's, that's not a page that. Is getting. I'm comfortable doing just one on one with her. Yeah, I'd be fine doing one on one. Yeah. Okay. Okay. That page is actually supposed to sink with exploring Minnesota tourism. So that it's pulling regional events, not just events that are in a diner, because when visitors come, they go other places besides. We're part of a vibrant. Metro area, a regional community. You. Yeah. No problem. Any questions for Ms. Loberg? Yes. Council member Jackson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when we're looking at social media, and you've got people creating these reels. Have you ever looked into having a YouTube channel? Yes. Actually, we do have one because I have done YouTube advertising before. Yeah. I know just so many people. My kids age, they only watch YouTube. They don't watch television or read the newspaper, but they do watch a lot of YouTube. Right. Our demographic tends to be like a 40, 50 something adult. So we tend to use channels that are in alignment with our target demographic. And actually, another thing that we're kind of talking about is the development of a podcast. Our, that would be something that we could use lodging tax funds to develop a podcast to talk to promote to talk about things going on in a diner. And we could also offer it as a space for the community to also use. And when our space was built out, that was one of the things that was imagined for the innovation lab that did not occur. But we do have that space in our office. And we certainly could develop it for that purpose. Great. And the other thing is because your demographic is women, have you ever thought about getting the programs of the links and the frost? That's a good question. Yeah. Yeah. No, not yet. I think that might be your target audience too. Particularly the links probably have a very healthy following right now. Yeah. For sure. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. When we have limited budget to split all of many different ways and the problem with print is it's not trackable. So we keep it sort of minimal. Yeah. But consider that because there are women's teams and that's your demographic. So yeah. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Other questions on the annual report? Right. You've, as you're involved with the chamber too, we restructured a loan. Correct. And it was restructured in a fashion where there were payments to be made to the city over time. And I think you've made one. And what was the first amount was 18. It's just under 19,000. I was going to say 18,000 something. Yeah. And we'll make another one before the years end. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Good. And that structure has allowed a comfortable cash flow for the chamber to be able to do that. And it's also allowed us to have more creative services in house so that we're spending more time on exploratory data activities. And you got yourself involved in one more activity on behalf of the city that's happening tomorrow. Yes. And do you want to tell folks what that is? I am. Oh, we're having a group here from Tennessee. Yes. So, you know, this is interesting. It's an economic development tour. And what's interesting about this is a fundraiser for the, for the organization that's putting it on. And I was invited to a happy hour about a year ago with the leaders of the Minneapolis and St. Paul chamber. And there was a representative from Williamson County, which is just outside of Nashville. And they were interested in our, in our community as part of their economic development tour. And specifically, they were highly interested in both the healthcare and the school system. And they're going to a number of places all over the twin cities, but it was kind of a neat opportunity to have them here in our community. So they've been working with our school district. School district has been super helpful. They are going to be visiting Norman Dell Elementary and hearing about our French immersion program. And then actually we're going to be hosting here at about 10 30 tomorrow. A forum for economic development discussion and Mayor Hovland is participating along with the mayors of St. Louis Park and Hopkins. Yeah. Are you? Yeah. And there'll be about 75 people in this group traveling all over the twin cities, learning about different, I think they're going to Mortensen. They're staying downtown. So they have a very robust agenda of visits. Yeah. It did seem like they're very curious about it. Learning more about Edina, which was great. Yeah. Which kind of goes hand in hand with some link I got, I think a couple of days ago I sent to you that on Yahoo, some organizations called Islands, I don't know what it is, had determined that. Never heard of it. What's the most city like suburb in the United States? Edina. Yeah. Toting Edina as having all these city like qualities. Yeah, really? The walkability of the development of the Southdale area was one of the focuses of the article. You can find it on Yahoo. Edina, number one, city like amenities for a suburb in the United States. Exactly. These are by islands, whatever that is. Oh, thanks for being here. Yes, my pleasure. Okay. So that's the only item we had on that portion of the agenda this evening on the special recognitions and presentations portion of the agenda. And thanks to the board members for being here as well. Mark, Jess, Paul, and Woody, thank you. Thanks for being here. And all the good works that you guys do for our town really appreciated. We've got three public hearings this evening and two of them I think we're going to probably deal with this evening. One of them will take testimony on and postpone a decision on it until our next meeting in early November. But the first matter we have in front of us is I think it'll be fairly routine and it's a potential issuance of a new on sale and talk skating a Sunday sale liquor license for what's called 3945 Market LLC DBA Terez. Terez or Terez? Which is it? Terez. Terez. All right. It's a new French restaurant that's going in where the Linholl was. You got a good audience here tonight, Mr. Del Prado. Here's a chance to have you come up here, I think. Don't shy away from that. Not yet. It is hold on. We're going to deal with this license issue first. And we will come up and testify if you want. But I'm going to turn to our clerk Sharon Allison who reviews all these matters with our police department in terms of issuing potential new licenses or recommending to us that a new license be issued. This is a public hearing matter. People are going to be able to testify. You included. And so let's turn now to our clerk Sharon Allison on this potential issuance of a new on sale and talk skating and Sunday sale liquor license for Terez. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Member. Mr. Mayor, you just did probably a half of my job. Terez, a new restaurant are going into the Linholl space. We'll be opening early November and applied for an on sale and Sunday sale liquor license. As protocol requires, we did do a background check and everything was found to be okay. And so I am recommending approval and to deviate from the process of holding over this public hearing for approval at the next council meeting, I'm recommending that you approve this item tonight. Mr. Del Prado is here in the audience, of course, along with his consultant, Ms. Wolf, and would be more than happy to answer any questions that you may have. All right. Good. With that, I'll stand for any questions. Any questions from council members for clerk Allison? All right. This is a public hearing. I'm going to open it up for public testimony. I'm going to ask Mr. Del Prado or Ms. Wolf to come up or both of you to talk a little bit about what you intend to do here. And then others may wish to testify as well. Please give us your name and your business address. I think I get away with a business address. My name is Daniel Del Prado. I can remember the business address, but it's in there. What is the business address? That's it. Sorry. Yeah. Well, you've got so many of them. It's hard to keep track of them. Well, yes, I love you, Diana. So, yeah. So tell us a little bit about this concept. And so your chance of this will be going out to our residents in our city? Yeah. So this is the name of my mom, actually. It's a French restaurant, a modern grocery restaurant. It's going to be casual, a brunch, lunch, and dinner. It's going to be a lot of greenery, a lot of green is the color of the brand. The menu is going to be, we're going to have 90 seats. The menu is going to be about 30 items with desserts included, all for different menus, but pretty similar for brunch, dinner, and lunch. Yes. It's a small kitchen, so we're going to keep it at 90 seats. I don't think that kitchen can operate a bigger capacity. It's all electric, too. So it's my first electric kitchen. So it's kind of like nervous, I'm nervous, but I don't know if you have electric in your house. It's not the same as gas, especially for a restaurant. But we're excited. We work in the menu every day. We have the menu pretty much done. Yes. As you know, I love it, I love this area. And it was time for a lot of new restaurants open up because a lot, they were closing. Yes, we heard the actors are doing well. We're happy for you on that. Yes, the actors are more casual. I think it's like one block of that way. So this one, although it's inside the Nolam Mainz project, I'm very confident it's going to do well. I think so. We have a lot of good, already a lot of people are interested about. We call it vestibor, a few sodas. Kind of like the all train station things. So we're focusing the branding around that. So yeah, I'm very excited. My mom is very excited that I named me after two. You should be excited. I think it's a beautiful space. I think you'll help it realize its potential. So we're really excited to have you here. I love this place already, but I needed to make it different, obviously. So we focus in like, not the traditional brassie look that is very masculine. I like very feminine things in design and stuff. So it's going to be very soft, more than feminine. Yeah, well, you just have about 20, 25 people right here thinking about it. These are bad action and good food. Yeah. And then it's going to be a bar, but the bar are going to come back for the bar portion of it. It's going to have an introduction. It's not bar, it's kind of like a high-fi, you know, like listening bar and stuff. So it's going to have an introduction that you can go to threes and then go to have a drink and listen to music across the alleys. Good. And how are you coming on the baro project that we approved a couple weeks ago? Thanks to you, our construction is underway. I think it's going to be August of 2026. So yeah, we have a lot of projects in that area. I'm very excited. So it was very intentional to do the four projects once. I have a big team too. I have to keep an entertain because talent in this industry, you know, it's not the same as before COVID. So like when I got talented team, I have to keep them excited, entertainmentally and creative. So yeah, after this, I'm going to put a bus still and need a vacation. But you got a lot going on. It's a good thing. Yeah. But it's what I love to do. I love opening restaurants. I don't know if operating day today is my favorite part. Yeah, well, you can tell that you love your work. Yes, I love it. You got Ms. Wolf to help make sure that nothing goes wrong. She's my young, you know, she's my young young. I'm like the dreamer and she's like, we need a liquor license and we need to meet that. Yeah. So she'll make sure you make budget and do it right. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Okay. Well, thanks for being here. This is a public hearing. Well, maybe you'll see if somebody else wants to talk. So you can go ahead and sit down on this. Oh, you can sit down on this. Yeah. Yes. All right. Anybody else in the audience wish to comment on this matter? Okay. All right. If anybody online who wishes. All right. Any questions from council members? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. I second. Rejects and moves. Member Agnew seconds. Motion to close the public hearing in this matter. Any further discussion? All in favor of closing the public hearing? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. Is there a motion to approve the new on sale and toxicating on Sunday sale liquor license for a 3945 market LLC DBA to reach? So moved. I second. Member Jackson moves. The motion is stated. Member Agnew seconds. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adopting the motion of state as say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. Motion is approved. The new on-tox kidding on sale will send Sunday to sale liquor license. This will be issued to a 3945 market LLC. Thank you for being here this evening. What's the timing on everything? Oh, yeah. Yeah, it's a dreamer and a realist. They're working together there. Yeah. All right. So this is another matter that I think we can probably deal with this evening on a public hearing basis. And Andrew Lutaya, who has a good connection to Edina, I think. Yes. When we did the 169 bridge, you helped us navigate through all of that. That was a year of difficulty. All right. And you've been here to talk about 494 and you've got another purpose here tonight that's 494 related and I'm sure the member appears to know so about it. That is correct. Mayor, council members, it's good to be back. Welcome. Andrew Lutaya. Thank you. It's been a while since I've been at your chambers. Hopefully for good. And how do I follow the discussion about the restaurant, right? But so my presentation will be very brief. I want to... So for my agenda, so the reason why we're here tonight is to request for municipal consent and I'll be kind of pointing out the state statutes that require me that to signalist per consent. And with new council member faces that have not interacted with that, what I was getting a chance to remind us of what the 494 credit of vision is. Then the later parts of my presentation talk through the second or the last phase of that credit of vision that we got funding for and the timing of construction for that phase and what major milestones that we are walking through to get us to construction. So yes, why, why MnDAD is seeking municipal consent? It is as prescribed by state statute that a project, a MnDAD project that goes through a community requiring permanent right of way or expanding or decreasing capacity on the highway. If it is altering any access on the highway, it is required to come to that community and seek municipal consent. So for the city of a diner in this case, it's for the 494 project is because we are adding capacity on the 494 corridor and therefore we need to request municipal consent. So as a reminder for the public, the 494 corridor vision runs from Highway 169 through to the airport. Physical construction is from Highway 169 to 24th Street just east of 24th Avenue and that corridor vision calls for adding easy pass lanes from 169th through 24th Avenue, reconfiguring the 35W 494 interchange and altering access east of 35W so between the Nicolette Portland and 12th Avenue and that altering access means we are removing highway access from, we did remove highway access from Nicolette Avenue and 12th and combining all that at Portland Avenue. So what most of the commuters, what they have been seeing out there for the last couple of years has been mostly focused west of 35W so between 35W and Highway 100 that was phase one or project one, all that pavement is all replaced. Construction is scheduled by about 95% with all the pavement replacement in that segment. We are on the east side of 35W. We put that avenue is now closed, it's going to start construction for that. Nicolette and 12th are about to be done. So those who have access on people that are crossing 494, they won't have access for 94. We have constructed a new pedestrian bridge just east of Portland Avenue. So as I mentioned, construction status wise, we are nearly there. We are for phase one, substation completion, we are still targeting October of 2026. For the most part, we are meeting our milestones in getting phase one completed. Now once, with the support of the city of Edina and the communities along the corridor, we continued, meant that continued to seek for funding to complete that corridor vision. So back in the fall of 2024, we did get federal funds to complete this corridor vision and that's why we are back in getting the approvals that we need from local agencies, from the state and from the federal government. And part of those approvals is requesting for municipal consent. So for phase two, in completing that vision, we are from highway 100 west. So between East Bush Lake Road and West Bush Lake Road, we will be repaving the grass median to add the easy pass lanes in that segment. But for the most part, the majority of phase two is concentrated on the east side of 35W. It does include reconstructing all the pavement and also work on 35W itself between 82nd Street and 76th. As part of phase two, we are also going to be reconstructing the highway 77 bridges. Yes, as part of the requirement that we do share with the city what their estimated cost participation is. And for this second phase, we are not anticipating any cost share from the city. And not really going much in detail, but usually some of that cost share is accounting for items that are outside, meant that right over that the city might want to include as part of that project. So for this second phase, we haven't been seeing anything that received any request for the city that they would want to include as part of the 494 project. I'd say in the midst of budget discussions, you've made people and you died very happy. There they go, right? It's a very narrow number. So for proposed staging, similar to phase one, we are still anticipating a FOIA construction project with a fast project, with a fast year in 2027, focusing mainly on utility relocation and temporary widening. Then 2028 through 2030, we are anticipating concurrent main line impacts on 494 and on 35W. But I wanted to point out here that so generally 494 is three lanes, general purpose lanes in each direction, if you are to exclude the merge lanes and those that are exiting. So we are trying to keep the same number of general purpose lanes throughout construction, similar to what we have done for the current construction project. Milestone-wise, we have kept very close in meeting these milestone dates. We just developed or we just finished a draft environmental document and that is currently under review. It will be published though. The public will have another chance for public comments for that environmental document. Come this summer of next year, so June of 2026, that's when we are anticipating to get federal authorization for the second project and that's when we start soliciting, that's when men that start soliciting our contractors to bead on the second phase. Letting, when we select that contractor is anticipated in October of 2026 and then come through. So because it's design build and what that means is that we have development that has developed the plans up to plenary design, we will hire a contractor that will advance them to final design and then construction. So that's why you're seeing a year gap between when we let the project in October 2026 and when we are anticipating physical construction starting in 2028. So as in my previous slide I mentioned that 2027 will be minor work including utility relocations and temporary pavement work. That is what I had for my presentation and I'll stand for any questions. Yeah, thanks Mr. Lutaya. Any questions for Andrew? Yes. Go ahead. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. This is a massive project and it was very clear presentation. On the environmental impact public input, is it going on now? How can the public participate in that? Good, Mayor, Council Member. So yes, once we have done our internal reviews we are anticipating around December to publish that environmental document for comments. So that would be a 30-day window and it's usually, it's published in the environmental quality board. So the EQB, usually that's why we publish environmental documents. Okay. Terrific. Thank you so much. Great questions for Mr. Lutaya. This is point in time. Okay. This is a public hearing matter. I'm going to stand by if you sit down and we'll see if there's some questions from the audience. Is there anyone, I'm going to open this up for public testimony now because it is a public hearing matter. Anybody care to come forward and testify regarding this matter? It's proposed, so what Mr. Lutaya is proposing is that the City of Adana Grant municipal consent to the project as he described it, which is actually way underway, as we all know. So all right, seeing no one coming forward hearing nothing, do anybody online that wishes to testify? You can see that Director Ben-Roc gets kind of forelearned when there's nobody online then we can bring in the talk to us. All right. Is there a motion to close the public hearing in this matter? It's all moved. Second. We got a motion by member Jackson. Second by a member appears to close the public hearing in this matter. Any further discussion on that issue? All those in favor of closing the public hearing say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. Public hearing matter is closed. The motion now would be to approve the resolution 2025-99, which will grant you that is municipal consent to the final layout for the project two phase of the I-494 corridor vision implementation plan. Is there a motion of that effect? So moved. Second. All right. Member Pierce moves is our good member on the 494 corridor commission and member Agnes seconds. The motion is stated. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adoption of the motion of the state as say aye. Aye. Opposed? Second. The motion is approved granting the DINAs municipal consent to phase two of the I-494 corridor vision implementation plan. Mr. LaTaya, thanks for coming over this evening. Appreciate having you here. We wish we saw you once in a while. A little bit more often than we do. And then the final matter is one that we're going to do public hearing on this evening and staff is recommending we continue the action to the first meeting in November. And this involves potential adoption of a resolution which would amend the spending plan for the Salt Hill to Pentagon Park in 70th and Cahill tax increment financing districts and Bill Nune door for our economic development manager is going to walk us through this request from staff. All right. Yes. Good evening. This public hearing is pertaining to resolution 2025-101 and it does involve proposed amendments to the spending plan for three existing TIFF districts. This plan is more commonly referred to as our Spark program here in Adina. So I'll run through the background briefly and then run through the proposed amendment and then provide some additional information that you requested when the HRA discussed this a few weeks ago. And then of course we open for questions and for the public hearing input. So in 2021 the state legislature passed special legislation for the use of cities all throughout the state where they might be able to use pre-existing TIFF monies. These are property taxes that had already been paid and collected to use them to support job growth and recovery after the pandemic. In response to that state legislation the city did create our Spark program as defined in the spending plan. Recently in this year the 2025 legislation made some changes to that state law and we're recommending that we respond to those changes in state law and update our Spark plan to reflect these new provisions. Actually let's go back to the slide just for clarification. You didn't mean pledge all available monies. You meant pledge all eligible monies. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Okay. This would be the funds that would be eligible based on the Minnesota statute. Correct. Right. Yep. Everything we're proposing is in accordance with Minnesota statutes. Correct. Okay. So in 2021 we identified approximately nine and a half million dollars in available funds that were retained by the city at that point that could be subject to use in the Spark program. Under this new legislation the state would also allow us to use the interest that had been amassed on those monies to be deposited into this program and that's about $775,000. So with the available money the 9.5 million we have pledged that to support a variety of projects throughout the city with more in the future if we do extend the program. Now these are heavily restricted funds when the state passes legislation they get very specific about how the dollars can be used and how they may not be used. And so of course we'd follow that state provision. So these funds were intended to create jobs either permanent or temporary construction jobs and build something physical. They cannot be used for operational expenses for staffing. The city cannot grab them and build a park or buy a fire truck or hire new folks. It has to be used for physical construction. And the state law did give cities a lot of flexibility in how they can use those dollars. For example we could use them as a forgivable loan, as a more traditional loan, as a grant or as an equity investment. There's a lot of flexibility there and certainly our spending plan does embrace that flexibility. So today these are images of some of the all of the projects that we've either funded or committed to so far. The renovation of the Adina theater as well as a lot of public improvements on all the areas that surround it, the sidewalks, some parking ramp improvements. Those were all eligible and completed. That restored that older theater back to where it is today that actually occupyable and in business. We used some of the funds to build a new public road at the Finch. That provides direct access into the Fred Richards Park as well as access to those private buildings that surround it. We provided a more traditional construction loan to the Adina Chamber of Commerce to support the construction of their innovation lab and their office space. We provided a small grant to open a crepe cafe on France Avenue and then we've pledged funds to allow construction of that new underground restaurant with music that Mr. Del Prado had just referenced in his previous remarks. So that's a music club that's currently under construction. While we've pledged the money we haven't paid anything yet, we typically provide the funding after they've completed it. They're on track towards completion. And then the last project that we pledged funding to is the redevelopment at the Old Macy's Furniture site. That's a site that is moving forward but it's moving forward slowly. I did provide a table in your packet that has more detail on each of these loans, grants and forgivable loans. I'm happy to answer any questions on that after I finish up the presentation here. But let's focus on the amendment. What is it that we're asking for today? The old legislation required that the spending program be completed by the end of 2025. The new legislation allows one more year, allowing those additional monies to be spent at the end of 2026. And then it also does allow the inclusion of the interest that was earned. So it's those two things, a little bit more time and potentially a little bit more funding. The process that we're going to consider this proposal is the standard process that we use here in the city. As an HRA board, we reviewed this concept back in September. This information has been live on our website for about a week or two now, allowing for questions and comments. Tonight's our in-person public hearing and we'll continue to take public input for the next week or so and then we'll come back on November 4th and ask you to make a decision whether or not to proceed. As an HRA, you had asked whether or what the outcome would look like if we said no, if we just let the program terminate at the end of this year. So if that were to happen, we would most likely not use the funds that have already been pledged. The biggest one there is the pledged to the Enclave project. Since they have not yet incurred demolition costs or anything for that site, we would probably just let that one expire and try to figure something out in the future. And there could be leftover funds in the range of $950,000 and possibly more. Now those funds would go back to the initial TIFF district that they came from and then they would be turned over to the county theoretically. Once they go to the county, Hennepin keeps about a third, about a third makes it sway over to the state and then the remaining third ends up in the city. So the actual dollar amount we would calculate in the future, but that's what termination of the program would look like if we let it expire this year. Our recommendation however is to keep the program going for one more year as allowed in the state law. We would strive to invest these dollars in business growth and other eligible expenses here in the city. Each of these funds were property taxes that were generated, paid, collected and earned by the city of Adina. It would certainly be my recommendation to keep these dollars in the city rather than divert them to the county or the state. And there's a lot of commercial projects that could be rehabbed, renewed or constructed as well as some public improvements that could be achieved with that. There has been an ongoing level of support and interest in this program. I'm currently working with a couple of restaurants and a couple other small businesses who have hit a wall in their financing. They want to keep moving forward and this could be what it takes to help them move forward. But they would, I've paused any decisions on those until we actually consider amending this program. So in summary, this program was created based out of the 2021 legislation. We are recommending that we make minor revisions to the program to reflect the new state law. And that would allow us additional time to invest the monies as well as a little bit of extra money to invest. So with that, I'll turn it back to you for any questions. We'll open the public hearing and look for your consideration in a few weeks. Let's see if council members have some questions first. I think a member of Pierce has one or two for you. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Can you, you're using a couple of terms in here that I think we've used them differently. So if you could clarify a couple of things, and this is a good slide for one of them. So the first bullet point says these are un-opligated TIF monies. And then we also talk about the, when a TIF district is set up, it has to fulfill the obligations of that specific district. Can you talk about the difference between those two terms and those examples? That makes sense. It does, but what, so if one term is un-obligated, what's the second term? Well, so the question is, for the three districts, I'll ask it this way. Have the obligations been met? The original obligations been met for those three districts. And when we say the funds are un-obligated, where are they coming from? Sure, sure. Okay. Now I understand. Thank you for clarifying. So let me go through them case by case. So in the Pentagon Park District, you might recall that's a larger district. It's about 40 acres. In 2021, we had made, the city had made funding commitments to the southern portion of the site, but no funding commitments to the northern half. So there were some projects that were starting to move forward on the northern half. But those, while they were paying their taxes, those monies were not obligated. They were just being retained in this TIFF district in hopes that something in the future might happen. So we took $700,000 of those un-obligated funds and put them towards the Spark program. That was in accordance with the state law that would supersede whatever the typical TIFF regulation would say. A similar situation in Southdale to district. When that district was getting close to expiring, there were additional funds in there. At one point, we were making plans to turn those back. We didn't see a path forward with those. And then the pandemic hit. And this special law was passed. And so we took advantage of the special law to take that $8.5 million out of the Southdale district and use it to support other projects in the community. And the 70th and Cahill district, the same story, that's an older district. It was actually created under 1985 legislation, which is even more unique than some of the current legislation. There's about $340,000 left in that account. We had used it over the years to make public improvements to the intersections, to sidewalks and trails. But we were running out of ways to use it in those districts. So when this new legislation became approved by the state, we took those additional monies and rolled them into the Spark program. So that's where they originated from. Then the last question, if we allow the Spark program to end, we allow the program to expire. When would we see whatever our share would be of those funds? Any Diana? Sure. I'll go back to this table and I know you probably can't read it. It gets pretty small. But one of the columns here talks about the dollar amount that's been pledged versus paid. And then I made some best guesses as far as funds that might be available. So for example, we've pledged about $670,000 to the enclave development on France Avenue. So far, we've not paid out a penny of that because they haven't earned it, frankly, at this point. So if that does not move forward, I think those funds could be available for being turned over. So when you add up those smaller projects that have not yet been paid, that's how you get to the $952,000 amount. So if this program were to expire at the end of 25, we would work with our financial advisor and our finance department and our legal advisors to determine where those monies belong. We originally took 700,000 from Pentagon Park. In 2021, there were no obligations. In 2025, there are obligations. So if we return that back to Pentagon, I'm, again, I still wanted to confer with our legal folks, but I think those monies would have to remain in Pentagon to pay down the other debt. The South Dale and the Cahill funds, we'd have to determine where those go and what the future looks like. But if this program expires this year, I don't think they'd be available until 2027 at the earliest. It'll take some time to understand where they belong and how the state law applies. So for looking for a big nest egg to roll over, there might be a small nest egg, but it's probably a year and a half away at the earliest. Great. Thank you. A member, Jackson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I think on this chart, it shows the projects that would expire if we were to end the Spark program or let it end in the end of 2025. And it looks like it's the Enclave project. And I remember we did some ADA improvements, didn't we, at the 4408 France? It looks like that's not spent yet of 24,000. And then other streamlined grant applicants. So that's what would not be funded, correct? That's correct. All right. And so these other projects that we've talked about, those qualify for the funds at this time. They qualify at this moment in time. Okay. So it's not $9.5 million that we're talking about. It's more around the level of $950,000. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And so how much of that would be returned to Edina then? One, six, six. A third of it? Is it one third, one third, one third? About one third. Yeah, it's a little bit more fine-tuned than that. But rough numbers, it's about one third to Edina. So about $330,000. Could make its way back to the city. Again, we still have to do legal review and make sure that that is how it works. But I think that's the high end. The low end might be about $100,000. Okay. And then what happens to that $775,000 in interest that's been earned in the meantime? That's a great question that I don't have a precise answer for you. To the best of my knowledge, those are interests, earnings on TIFF revenues. So I believe they go back to the TIFF district from where they originated. Okay. And then so they're different. And so the disposition would be different based on which TIFF district they're from. Correct. And that would be proportionally from what's in the fund, correct? Or... Yeah, I mean the Southdale district had a larger initial balance. So more of the interest would be returned there. So it would be commensurate with the initial balance. Okay, thank you. And then finally, when we say one third, one third, one third, the third that goes to the state is through this very complicated process of funding schools, correct? It goes to the schools, but the schools aren't allowed and understate a lot of keep it. So then it reverts back to the state. Is that correct? That's correct. It's even more complicated than that. But yes. Well, I just say complicated state finance of schools. Yeah. Yeah. So the city would turn the money over to the county. The county would keep about a third. They'd send about a third back to the city. They'd send about a third back to the schools. Some shared with the Richfield school district. Some shared with the Adina school district. Then the following year, the state school finance group would notice that the schools had new money. So they would withhold money the following year. So they would balance out. So it takes a little while, but eventually those dollars benefit the state, not the schools. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. There's a question that comes up when we're talking about TIFF. All right. Those are my questions. And thank you. Member Risher? Anything? Just real briefly, some of that because the range is 950,000 to 1.7 million in one of your slides. And some of that interest could make it back and not just stay stuck in one of the three TIFF districts. That's what we'd have to investigate with our financial advisors. I'm not certain exactly. That would happen. But my best, to the best of my knowledge, it would remain in those TIFF districts to pay off debts and obligations of those districts. So it's very unlikely that it would end up flowing into the city directly. Okay. And on your intro slide and then on the map that you showed, Wooddale and Valleyview was represented. And I'm wondering, was money taken from that TIFF district as well? Okay. Yes. Yes, it was. The 70th and Cahill and the Wooddale Valleyview were both created, I believe in 1985, maybe 86. And they are, while they're two different neighborhoods, they're one account. They're merged together. So at some point in time in the early, in the late 80s, those dollar amounts were co-mingled. And just understanding development in the Wooddale Valleyview area, I thought at one point there was going to be signage to mark the gateway into that space. And that never actually happened. Were any of those funds supposed to go to that? They were not. So the state law in 1985 severely limits how those monies can be used. Okay. So for that gateway marker, we were planning, when it was a project, we were planning on using money from Centennial Lakes District. Because state law allowed those monies to be used in that manner. But not the monies from Wooddale Valleyview. Okay. Thank you. Just to kind of segue off of both member Pearson and member Jackson, if we use that, I know it's hypothetical, but one possibility is that we had about $950,000, if you're thinking about turning back, we'd get about a third of it. The third point was we get about $330,000. If you extrapolate that to our current budget or our proposed budget for 2026, either from a levy standpoint or a total budget standpoint, what does that represent? I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but it's a very small amount. If we look at the levy amount that's proposed for 26, this $330,000 or so is less than 1%. We have about a half a percent in that range. But we wouldn't actually see it in 26. It'd be 27 at the earliest. And again, there's no guarantee that we'll get $330,000. It might be less than that. But as it relates to our overall budget and our overall spending, it's a very minute amount. I don't think it would be noticeable in anyone's tax bill. We're on 0.1, 0.2%, sounds like a few. Look at the total budget versus a levy. Yeah, if you look at our total spending as a city, not just what's in the levy, I did run the numbers there and it's much smaller. It's about 0.15 or 0.16 of a percentage point. Yeah. Okay. Good. Any other questions? I've prompted anything else from Council members. All right. This is a public hearing matter. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to testify regarding this matter? Sorry, growths. Oh, you know, I'm going to give you, you know, my address. Give the money back. City Council, not just this one, previous ones also, been addicted to TIFF. And it's affecting our levy. It's not free money. It costs taxpayers money. Now, Mr. Newendorf said you have the choice of giving it back or keeping it in the community. Well, if you keep it in the community, doesn't come back to the taxpayers, that money doesn't go into the general fund. It stays with developers. And need to cut the cord and cut it now. As an example, for the Southdale to TIFF, if I remember correctly, that amount originally for that district was 5.1 million. And maybe Mr. Newendorf can tell me, but I believe they collected between $25 and $30 million that district should have been closed after they recovered the 5.1. And then that money had come from the Centennial Lakes TIFF district. Money gone back to them. You see it as free money, and it keeps getting spent, and we can't afford it. Take a look what's been going on with the levy for the last 10 years. You may want something just because you want it. If you can't afford it, you can't get it. You're dealing with OPM, other people's money. Give it back to us, even if it's a small amount. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Groch. David Trankel, as council member Jackson mentioned in the last HRE meeting, economy is getting soft. I'm not going to pretend to be an economist. But talking to, seeing what's in the press and talking to business owners, I talked to one of the business owners, the strip mall, Wooddale and Valley View that was just mentioned. And across the board up there, the business is getting soft. All the businesses are worrying about the future. My point is, the city council, the city of Dina shouldn't be playing winners and losers with this money. When you start giving money to businesses, you're determining who's winning and who's losing, who may survive and who may go under. For example, pinstripes, they're parent companies in chapter 11. Are we going to bail out pinstripes? Where's it going to end? We also have a different topic, but are municipal liquor stores. Given what I've seen, the number of people going in those stores. Those are going to the financial problems. That's going to hit the city. But anyway, back to winners and losers. It's the same with TIFF. TIFF chooses winner and loser developers. Those that want to go after it and those that don't want to or maybe don't qualify. But I agree with Lori Groats. This money should be returned to the state, to the county, and to the residents of Dina. Good evening, Janie Weston. You know my address too. I think the Spark Fund, it should be closed, allow to close at the end of this year. I do not think it should be extended. That is money that, yes, if it's given back to the county, the state. We are also residents of Hennepin County. We are also residents of the state of Minnesota. That money doesn't go to someone else. That we are still part of the whole community of the state and the county as well as the city. It is money that needs to. Go back to where it should be going to. The Spark Fund was set up because of COVID. COVID is done. Let it finish. And one problem with also spending Spark funds on a number of these projects is that they have not been successful. They have been a poor investment for the city. The innovation lab was one. That is now gone. It did not work. That was a lot of money gone. It's not gone. It's being repaid. Okay, well, it has not been very successful. You heard Ms. Wilberg say she's making $18,000 payments. Those are the payments. The bridge that is at the Grandview, the pedestrian bridge, was done without any public hearing. And I see that as a problem with how a lot of this money is spent, there's no public hearing as part of the process for it. And things sometimes don't go well, such as it not being an ADA compliant bridge. Now, I'm not sure how that's going to be dealt with at the west end of it. So, process is very, very important. Public input is very, very important. When the public input is taken out, I think some decisions are not the best decisions made. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Anybody online? I have no colors online. Okay. We've got a suggestion. We're going to leave it open. So, November 1st. Yeah. I was just thinking about whatever. We should address some of these issues. Yes, Mr. Nune door back up here. I have one other segue question. So, I mean, the question's been raised and the concern's been raised, I guess, is a better way to put it. That this money, we should give the money back. And that it's money that stays with developers. And from having been on this council and used this park money for certain purposes of any data, I don't see that. But I do see the way it's been used. And what are the things that we've used it for that we might otherwise have had to levy people for in the general fund levy? Instead, we had a fund of cash available to do some things that we might have otherwise had to assess people for. Yeah, there were a great question. There were two projects in particular where we leveraged this special law and spark program to avoid additional levy. So the biggest one was the $2 million expense to build a new public street into Fred Richard's Park. That was one of the projects where I consider them more public private partnerships. The private developer was going to build his building. He needed the rear entrance. In our long term visions, we wanted a direct road to the park. Rather than us taking out levy and public debt for $2 million, we had him build the road to the city's specifications and then reimbursed him with a spark money. So that was about exactly a $2 million savings that we did not have to levy. Similar concept to a smaller scale at the Edina Theatre. There is a myriad of public improvements in the surrounding vicinity areas that needed attention. They were just not in the budget. And so rather than levy or wait longer to fix things that were on the verge of breaking, we were able to work with the developer and contractor of the theater building. And completely redo the sidewalks in that whole vicinity to make them smoother, safer, better. We should get another 25 years or so of life out of those. As well as some essential improvements to the parking garage that the theater relies on for its success. The whole business district relies on that garage for its success. So we put about $400,000 of public investments wrapped into that theater renovation program instead of levying for that. We found it more expeditious to get the work done promptly without raising the levy. So that's about $2.4 million that we alternatively could have levy for. But you and your predecessors chose not to levy for that and use a different source. And then Ms. Grocer is the issue of Saltdale TIFF District. I don't remember how much money was raised in that district. But the purpose of setting up that district in the first place was we loaned Saltdale some money to remodel. And when they remodeled 15 years ago, not this current remodel where they're spending $400 million. When they sign the remodeled this mall 10, 15 years ago now, we set up a TIFF District around that mall. Because we thought it might encourage those adjoining property owners to reinvest in their property too. Because the biggest piece of property out there, property owner, on the 80 acres, chose to reinvest in their business. And that spurred all kinds of economic development around there. But that TIFF fund was set up for one specific purpose around Saltdale District. And that was, as I recall, affordable housing to raise money for us to invest in affordable housing in our town. And do you remember how much money that was and how it was used? Yes, that's what I'm getting to. Sure, sure. So your recollection is correct. That was a few years ago. That was 2011 and 2012. But back in that era, the Saltdale Center was really not declining. It was declined. And so the city leveraged our abilities to finance by offering a $5 million interest-free loan to Simon Properties if they would do a number of things. They did everything we asked and more. And then that led to tremendous spin-off in the surrounding area. So that particular TIFF district was amended on a few occasions, probably two, maybe three times. I don't remember specifically. But one of the first projects that we funded after the mall itself was that 66 West apartment building. For youth that had formerly been homeless and needed an opportunity and safe housing. So we used some of the money that generated from Southdale to support that project. That I believe was 2013 or 2014. And then once that became successful, we recognized that those dollars generated from the mall could be used for other affordable purposes. And that's what we did. So I don't remember the precise dollar amounts. It definitely was far north of 5 million. That TIFF district was a roaring success. It did everything we had hoped and even more. As I recall, that was all the legislature saying because of the great recession at that point in time, you could set up TIFF districts to encourage construction activity again. But the TIFF district had to have a limited sort of purpose to it. And that was why we selected affordable housing. A limited purpose and a limited time. So that TIFF district only lasted for eight years. Different state laws, different rules. So that was an eight year term. Typically TIFF districts are 25 years. But yes, in that circumstance with a great recession, the opportunities given by the state were different than they are today. But I would still say that was a very successful program. That prompt anything, yes, member Jackson. So if we were to let this lapse, the money would go back to the city of Edina as the city government, not to individuals, is that correct? So close. So the money would go back to the TIFF districts, which are restricted funds. If it gets returned there, we would work with our financial and legal advisors to see what happens next. I believe for Pentagon Park, I think the money would stay there. I think the Southdale too, maybe. I'm not sure what would happen with that. That's one of the most complex districts we've ever created with all those special laws from that era. And then the Wooddale and 70th district, it would go back to that fund. I'm pretty sure we would return that to the city. That fund, the limitations from 1985 laws are so restricted. For certain we would return that money. That's about $300,000. So it would, but when we return it over to the county, they share it with the city. It does not, there's no check mail to individuals. It goes back into the city. And then you as a city council can determine how to use those dollars. Correct. And this is a question for our city manager. I believe it's our policy that if we have excess funds, that goes into the construction fund, which funds our capital improvement program, is that correct? That is normally correct unless there's some other guidance on how those funds can be used. But the default is to go into the construction fund. And so in one time money we generally spend on one time spending, if I remember correctly. Okay, thank you. Okay, good discussion. The staff requested to have the council adopt a motion to close the public input in this matter on Sunday, October 26th, 2025. And continue the action to the November 4th, 2025 city council meeting. Is there a motion to that effect? It moved. Second. Projection moves. Number of pure seconds. The motion is stated. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adoption of the motion of the state of the aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. Motion is adopted. And we will close the public input on this matter on Sunday, October 26th, 2025, and continue it to the November 4th, 2025 city council meeting. Thank you, Mr. Noendorf for being here. Let me get down to this resolution. We got, you know, thanks for your patience out there. Our fellow residents here, as we work through our agenda. We've got the next thing is the resolution 2025-102 accepting donations on behalf of the city of Eden. Is there a motion to that effect? So moved. Second. Member Jackson moves. Member of pure seconds. The adoption of resolution 2025-102, which accepts donations made to the city of Eden. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adoption of resolution 2025-102 say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. For those in the audience virtually or look here in the chambers, we had a grant from BKV group of $1875 to the communications department for the photo rights. They bought the photo rights, the images of Fire Station 2. And then the park and recreation grants were from the United Baseball Association. A significant donation of $18,250 approximately for baseball infield improvements at Yancey Park. And then Steve Bunning, bewning $350 donation of a tree at Arden Park. And also Anne Marie Coates, $50 donation for general use to the Dina Senior Center. So thanks to those donors to the city of Edenina. And now we are at that portion of the agenda where we look at any commission correspondence. I don't think we've had anything come in and we've disseminated that information already. And we are now at manager's comments and I'll turn to manager Neil. None tonight, thank you. Okay. I think if we have, I'll call it ancillary sort of comments, comments other than one of the topics we've got in front of us under the Mayor and Council comments is gun violence prevention advocacy. I think I personally I can hold off making my other remarks until we have this conversation. But I'm trying to frame it up. And I think in the aftermath of what happened in an association Catholic school and their community. There was some many strong feelings all over town that many of us went to. Vigil's in parks and tried to show our respect for these families and the people who had lost children, children that were injured. And our council itself, and I think some of you know this in the audience, passed a resolution on September 16th. The gun violence that happened at an association happened on the 27th of August. And within the first meeting afterwards on their 16th of September. With the encouragement, I think offline of many of the council members. We passed a resolution that dealt with expressing solidarity with the Annunciation Catholic School community and calling for stronger gun safety protections. The list included, I think many things that you're all concerned about as well. Was ensuring universal background checks on all commercial firearms transfers. Strengthening extreme risk protection orders, red flag laws, which was with the governor today at noon and he said they're working extremely well. By ensuring timely enforcement of those red flag laws. And acting and funding strong safe storage and child access prevention requirements paired with statewide public education campaigns. Prohibiting a sale in possession of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Preserving in strength any Minnesota's permit to purchase and carry licensing system and opposing permitless carry. Banting ghost guns, 3D printed firearms, bump stocks and conversion devices. Expanding funding for community violence intervention programs and hospital based intervention models. And fully funding school and youth mental health services so that trauma does not define our children's future. I think I'm older than everybody in the room and what I remember growing up is we had fire drills and tornado drills. No kid should have an active shooter drill. No kid, no child should have to be gone through that. The things that are weather related understandable, but not something like this. And so our council has very strong feelings. This resolution, this proclamation was passed unanimously. And the resolution part of it said the United City Council affirms cities are ready to partner on these issues. We therefore call on the Minnesota legislature and Congress to engage cities in this work with the urgency, courage and persistence needed. Our children deserve our best effort together at the end gun violence everywhere. I know today that there was information back in the press, Melvin Carter over in St. Paul and a group of mayors met a few weeks ago. And I think they had a proclamation that they put together. At the time I was trying to figure out was this, because of the ban, the prohibition on cities being able to approve measures that might reduce gun violence. There was some at least confusion on my part about, well, can a statutory city be involved in this situation when there's preemption? These, many of those cities were home rule cities, charter cities. I thought, is that a distinction? How are we going to get involved in this thing? How are we going to be persuasive? Those voices are strong and they matter, I think. But when you think about why the governor hasn't called his special session yet, and as I said, I was with him today, I don't have a sense that he's ready to call it yet because he wants, he's got the same ideas all of us have, I think, in this room that are kind of framed up around this proclamation that we pass back in mid-September. And so we're here trying to figure out what else to do and the associations we belong to, like the Municipal Legislative Commission with the governor today. It's 19 cities that have similar views of how governance ought to work that are part of this association. And that was one of the questions we had for the governor today was, how can we help on this gun violence issue? And I told Aaron, he was forthright about it. He said, just start making some more noise as a city. Where cities are talking about abandoned preemption at the state level, let us do it ourselves. He said that may or may not work, but at least your voice is being heard and raised. And so our council wants to talk about this and hasn't had a chance to talk about this. And this isn't a public hearing matter where you can participate with us, but we know you care because we've had your correspondence. And we know what you're concerned about in terms of having your city's voice heard and your voice heard through your city representatives in some broader way. And so we wanted to have this chance to have this conversation. And I think due to your group, you've nudged us along and helped us move along to this phase tonight where we're going to have this conversation about what are the possibilities and what we could do next. And I haven't had a chance to have any offline conversations with my fellow council members because we have to be careful at open meeting laws. So I don't even know what folks are thinking about, but I can tell you that I think the feelings are pretty uniform and they're expressed in that resolution we passed. And if we can move beyond that resolution, if we can move beyond that resolution, as some other sort of action, I think we'll entertain that. And I think folks up here may have some ideas on what to do. And I don't know, remember, Agnew, you were early on asking, let's do something. Let's get something going here. And you may have some thoughts that you want to lead us off on. Yes, thank you. And thank you, everyone, for being here tonight and for all the correspondence. And I also want to appreciate Dave Kendall for some of the thoughts that he'd put together to around. I know we have this preemption in the state level. And so I had been over the last couple of meetings also pushing towards, is there something that we could do that would trigger in effect within Edina if the preemption were lifted? So I think that there's a good amount of conversation that we can have around that. We have the memorandum in front of us with a little bit more information on that. And maybe Dave Kendall could speak to that. But I also think that there are some components that aren't preempted that we could still take action on. One of them being within the limits of Edina, could we put together some ordinance around safe storage? So I don't think that everything is preempted from our capabilities. And so I would love to continue to look at this resolution and kind of what we're calling for and even go like line item by line item of what's preempted, like what are hands tied on right now? And what do we have the capability to act? Upon just to make sure that we are doing everything we can at the city level too. No, I think that's a great point that we asked our city attorney to take a look at this too, knowing we were going to have this meeting. And I'm just going to highlight some of the things that he said there. He said that city regulations, there's underlying information supporting each of these statements that he makes, but city regulations of firearms, ammunition or components are expressly prohibited under state law. Cities likely cannot avoid preemption by passing an ordinance which delays the effective date of the ordinance to whatever the state may live to whenever the state may lift a preemption. And then even if a city could pass an ordinance that would be effective, should the state lift local preemption, it may not be entirely enforceable. But he goes on to state and this is something I think it's important to everybody in this room and everybody beyond this room in our community. Assault weapons in large capacity magazine bans are likely enforceable at this time on a local, he means on a local ordinance basis. But the Supreme Court would likely find assault weapons bans unconstitutional. Well, should we just assume that they're going to do that or should we make our voice heard, you know, on something like this? And so this is something that's I find quite appealing from a concept standpoint. You know, the governor talked about just two of those those switches, the binary trigger bans, that's been ruled on already and apparently we can't do much about that. But the assault weapons, we could, you know, it appears that we could we could do something about that as a counsel and also with ghost guns. And I think the 3D printed guns I would assume, maybe fit into that category that we could do something about that. And then we could also think about banning firearms in proposed sensitive places that are subject and they that may be something we can at least think about. But more broadly that is that assault ban, assault weapon ban is something that I think we could we could think about as a counsel. I don't folks have thoughts about that. We just got this memo this evening. So we have a chance to study it. Mayor, I just want to clarify that those are all things that would not be prohibited but for the state preemption. So those are all options if the state preemption did not exist. All right. Okay. I wasn't framed up that. Yeah. So that's a peril of not having read had time to read. Yeah, I apologize for that. You know, the memo didn't arrive until today. I know you haven't had having that time to look at it closely. So the starting point is that the state preemption is the problem for local regulation. There's other states in the country that don't have that preemption and cities have enacted assault weapons bans, for example, and those have not been struck down as yet although they could be by the US Supreme Court, but they have not. So those would be an option but for the state preemption in Minnesota. So from my perspective, it would be helpful for the city to I mean the previous resolution supported gun violence prevention. I think it'd be perhaps more helpful to specifically ask the state legislature to lift that statewide preemption allow for local gun violence prevention. Okay. So of the things you mentioned that are highlighted in your memo, there isn't really anything that you think we can do with the ghost guns, 3D printed guns, thought weapons, switches, high capacity magazines, because they're all subject to the preemption. Correct. So that's those are all things that Saint Paul is looking at. And I think Saint Paul, I mean, they don't speak with one voice, but I think many people in Saint Paul would admit that those are all currently not allowed under the state preemption. They pass that ordinance, it will not be legal under state law. Remember Pearson? I think he just answered it. Can you just give us like legal 101, what preemption actually means? And I think you were kind of getting at that. So if we were to pass an ordinance and it's subject to preemption, what's the process? Is it just automatically illegal? Because we know that exists? No, it would not be automatically illegal. There would be a couple of options. If you tried to enforce it, anyone you tried to enforce it against could bring a lawsuit or as a defense, they could allege that the ordinance was unconstitutional or illegal and therefore void. Another option would be pre-enforcement preemption where they would just bring in a lawsuit asking the court to declare that it's preempted even though you haven't tried to enforce it against anyone yet. Okay. So I just my feedback, I think we have to, this is complicated for me, but I think we do have to just kind of face reality for what it is, for what we want it to be. And I actually think two things. One, I did write up a piece in the sun current that I do understand the gun violence issue, but we have so much violence in the U.S. and it's not always predicated by guns. And so I think we have a much deeper issue in our society where there's simmering hate across the gamut. And when that hate is allowed to continue to simmer, individuals take some device, whether it's a gun, whether it's a vehicle, whatever it is, and they act out. And I think until we address, we start to really address the underpinnings of that issue, we will continue to see violence in the U.S. And I talked about everything from hangings to people using cars to kill other people. And so I still believe that. Secondly, when I talk, and so that's one reality, the second reality is if we really want to take action, I think we should just do it. And if we feel like we should have an ordinance in the city of Edina that covers these issues, let's just do that. And if that means that we end up going to the state Supreme Court for whatever reason, or somebody sues us for whatever reason, at least we're in a very loud way making our voices heard. And so that's the third reality to me. Until something changes, all we really have is our voice. And so making our voices loud, in my opinion, just having a memorandum, right, that doesn't do it. And so while it may not be legal, and we may get sued, and we may have to go to the Supreme Court, that's what's happening today. That's what our president is doing. And so I think if we're serious about this particular issue, I think we should draft something, and we should take the risk that we're going to get some of the get sued, and go up to the hill, and talk about, and I think that is what Mayor Carter, he and I are fraternity brothers, so I hardly ever call him the mayor. I think that that is what he's trying to do. So that's what I would offer. That's really all we have, in my opinion, is to make some noise. For Mr. I don't know if I can follow that. I hear what you are saying in the frustration, and gun violence now is the leading cause. My understanding is the leading cause of childhood death that has gone higher than the cause that I am passionate about, which is traffic violence, which killed my nephew. So it's really hard to not really hear what Member Pierce is saying, and looking out at all of you with your red shirts, and you're showing up, and this is a really important thing. That's what I was actually going to ask. City Manager Neil to talk about what he has been doing at the legislature with the resolution, just so you hear that we have been active, and so maybe you could do that. Yes, so the resolution that was referenced previously 2025, 86, the resolution of support after the Annunciation events, we have shared this directly with our legislative team, and asked them to assist us with these goals, and also to let us know what we can do on a local basis to assist them at the legislature, because that's where this change needs to be focused on. Overjection. So I have to say I was heartbroken when Aaron emailed me the other night saying that there was a group, a coalition of cities, that stood up against gun violence, and we weren't on the list. I was speechless, because we are passionately against gun violence, I could have worn my mom's direction, I wore my anti-bullying pink instead. This, my number one priority in life is to make this a safe place for our children, and the shooting was so awful, and I felt just floored that we weren't on that list, and I wanted to know, I don't know how that happened, but we would have been first in line if I'd known about it. So I'm hearing a number of things that we can do. We can have an ordinance about safe gun storage, and that seems to be within our powers. We could have this be one ordinance and be severable, but I think we should pass an ordinance, as member Pierce said, calling for the things, you know, outline the things that we want to outlaw that are in our resolution. And I think we should also send a message to the legislature whether we need another resolution or what we've got as sufficient, but to lift the preemption if you're not going to act at the state level. I am really disappointed that the governor didn't stand up and say, bring it. Force these people to vote no against safety for our kids. I'm just, I'm floored by all of this, and so I would like to ask that, I don't know if we need to vote to direct staff to write this ordinance, but I'd like to see it. I'd like to vote on it, and I'd like to make some noise. Kate may have some more thoughts, and I've got some too. As we visit here. Yeah, and I think that member Jackson kind of was doing exactly as I was thinking about it. Let's go through that list. So love the idea of which was number three, the enacting and funding strong safe storage. Like let's do something for eDynan in particular for safe storage. I would want to have a conversation. I won't put anyone on the spot to do that here, but understanding is there any strengthening that could be done or is needed regarding our extreme risk protection orders within eDyna. So that's an area I just, I want to learn more about and it's probably a conversation that we need to have with our police department. 100% agree. Let's put together the ban on prohibiting the sale and possession of assault weapons and high capacity magazines, along with number six, which was banning ghost guns, 3D printed firearms, bump stocks, and conversion devices. I think those are like the very tactical. The rest are obviously some of what I think member Pierce was talking about too. There's the the counterpart counterpart to this of just like the the hatred and the mental health components. And so, you know, partnering with our school systems, right? That's so so imperative for what we're doing. But when I think about what is paper that we can improve and we can vote on as a council, it's those actions that I just outlined. You know, it's um, I'm thinking about Aaron and I were also in the we had the session on maybe some of you were there at the identity committee Lutheran Church, shortly after the Annunciation Church experience. And so I think again, everybody's feelings for the same. When we talked to the governor today, and I mentioned this to some of the folks that were out in the audience before the meeting started, the governor said that he was a when he was a congressman, he was in favor of, you know, people owning assault weapons weapons that were designed to kill people and tell Sandy Hook. And then you think about Sandy Hook and what hasn't happened since Sandy Hook. Well, even if you look back to Colorado years before that, it's a little bit as I sat here listening to my colleagues and James did a nice job of articulating everything. I think that we're all thinking about it. So it's a little bit like that concept of jury jury nullification where the jury is trying to make a decision in the case. The judge said here's here's your instructions, which follows the law. And the jury says, this law is wrong. This isn't right. The right thing to do is not follow the law in this circumstance. And that's a little bit of what we've got going on here, I think from an attitudinal standpoint. So and the governor mentioned today too, he said stand up and make some noise. And and well, you might be disappointed. I think he's maybe working his way towards that point where he's going to make people stand up and say what they think and why they think what they think and put people in an awkward position that are in favor of not doing anything about this. So I, you know, I'm with my colleagues on this. I think we should be doing something. Let's pass something. Let's let's be prepared for the consequences of it. Whatever they might be, I, what can they be? We end up spending some time in the courthouse, you know. So I think this idea of looking at our resolution and figure out what we want to do, look at the St. Paul ordinance, we can take a look at that and see what we like about it and what we don't like about it and or how we would, you know, what we'd modify. I guess it's a better way to put it. What we might want to modify or think or think any data, we might want to approve it. And there's always a lawyer with a pen, you know, that wants to do a little editing. So I think we should take a look at it and then we'll just keep this moving. We'll keep moving forward as a community here together with you. We'll just agree we got each other's backs on this thing. Look at each other's backs. We're doing we're doing what we think is the right thing regardless of what the state legislature said. We think we're doing the right thing. And we'll see what happens. Maybe there if there are enough voices like this, we get the change that we want to see at the legislature and that change can happen in different ways. You know, you think back to the think back to domestic partner registry, gay marriage, smoking, all of that sort of cities. It's a different sort of factual circumstance because there wasn't preemption, but it's but it all sort of a cities raising their voices on these things that were important. And then it finally moving up to the state legislature level and then making a change that was consistent with what we had all done already. So this is a variation on theme, I think. And let's see where it goes. And I think we're all on board here with this. And let's let's ask our city attorney as reluctant as he is as a lawyer to draft or give it to me. I'll speak first. Well, I if you do have some ideas or preferences, we would like to see them. Well, I think I think we could start let's start with the same poll ordinance. Let's take a look at that and see what we think about that. And you probably even have copies of it. I don't have a copy of it yet. We can get copies. And then maybe we should think about this in terms of separate ordinances. So the things that we think we can deal with like storage that aren't going to get challenged, we can make sure that they get through. So we we get we get the outcome that we know will probably get there. And then with respect to the broader issue of banning the salt weapons, the sale of the salt weapons in our community, we can take that one up and look at the same poll model and go from there and maybe within maybe at the middle of November, we could have something that we could look at. I don't know what timing two meetings away, that's not much time. And you'll be gone. Oh, and it's all being just the first first meeting. But not the middle of November. Mayor, just to be clear, I'm not against curbing gun violence. Nobody in favor of stopping gun violence. I just these these women here will walk you all the way to your car. If you're nervous, I'm just trying to do my job to do the advice. You have the dangers of passing a law that's preempted under state law. But I'm happy if you direct me to draft an ordinance that tries to curb gun violence, I'm certainly happy to do that. And we have to be cognizant of the position that we're putting our police department, our individual police officers, and especially when we know that it's it's most likely not an enforceable ordinance. To put them in that position, they they've got they have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and enforce the laws. They have they have individual licenses that could be could be impacted. We just need to think about that as we as we draft whatever we're going to draft here. So when we're talking about it today, the MLC meeting was a governor. He was talking about prospective, not retroactive. You know, you couldn't take somebody who's gone away from them. But you know, in terms of forward looking sales, there would be a ban. My my my help with the PD that might help with the PD. I think it's possible to do the same thing that Saint Paul is doing and write something about the effective date stating that will not be effective until the state preemption is lifted. I don't think that would necessarily save it from challenge. Someone could still try to challenge it even if the state preemption is not lifted. But it would save the police officers from trying to enforce an ordinance that is technically preempted in our state law. Can I so I I think I understand all of those points. We definitely have to make sure we're protecting our police officers. But if I thought about like what measure would say whatever we drafted was successful. It's actually not that we've taken somebody's gun away. It's probably something like we got a letter from the DOJ that says you guys can't do that. Right. It's something like along those lines, we get a letter from the state that says you guys can't do those things because of preemption. Right. And you're starting the conversation. And so I I would be thinking along those terms. And we could actually get there by drafting an ordinance of things that to your point, things that we we know we probably can't enforce and we may get sued. And we could write that ordinance to say this is going to be our ordinance goes into effect in 45 days. And here's everything that's in it. We probably would get some kind of letter before that mark that says you guys can't do this. And that starts the conversation. Well, if we can't do it, we think this is important for our community. So then when Mr. Governor, how are we going to make sure this stuff gets done so that it becomes state law? Like that's how I would think about it. And I like the way mayor said let's do two ordinances. There's one that's things that we can enforce. All right. So let's not put those with the ones that we're positive. Right. We're going to get our hands slapped for get that one done. And I think the other one should just be full of band this band that band this band that band this band that. And here's why. Right. And our measure is somebody is going to tell us, yeah, you can't do that. You have to the state has to do it. And our point is the same that Mayor Carter see I thought about it that time. And I think it's on the website says, all right, you're not doing anything. You need to do something unless you do something. Here's what we're going to do. That's how I would be thinking about it. It's easier for us to draft something if we're looking through the lens of, well, what could we actually do? It's not going to go far enough, in my opinion. That's one of the reasons I like doing to. Director. I hear what you're saying. And I am the one who is a stickler for process. And I do have to say, I did underline in the information that was sent to us by our city attorney because a local ordinance regulating firearms would be preempted under current state law. I recommend the city pass the resolution calling upon the state legislature to change state law in this area rather than passing an ordinance which would be preempted. I see the logic of that. And it's hard because, yeah, I want our name on the document. I want to be part of this at the same time. I want a pragmatic pathway forward. And one that, you know, you can say, oh, nothing's working. So we need to do this and that. And maybe we get sued and all of that. But as an elected official who took my oath of office, I kind of feel, I do feel that a pragmatic approach, and this does seem like it is the pragmatic approach. And it could, we could be the city saying, hey, we really need to have this preemption changed before we move forward. But I want to emphasize, you know, I lived near anunciation. It was so, I mean, that day, I was numb. That whole day was just a blur. And we need to do something. The question is, what are we going to do and how are we going to move forward? And, you know, I just feel like I need to say that. I also feel like tonight we can't really make a decision. I think we need to think about that. Well, I don't know. That's my opinion. Maybe we do move forward. But know that we have been advocating at the legislature, and we have been working, and we need to approach this in a way so that we can move the needle. And I don't know if we're the city that's saying, you know, let's keep the focus on what the state has to do. But I just have to put that out there. I would just mention it's possible to craft a resolution that goes through all the same details that you'd put into the ordinance, whether it be, you know, ghost guns, bump stocks, triggers, assault weapons. And you can put anything that you think should be banned. You can put that into a resolution just as easily as an ordinance. You know, so it doesn't have to be just calling the state to lift the statewide ban. It could be calling the state to do any and all the things that you've discussed tonight and whatever detail you want to cover it. Ever agnew. Yeah. Thank you. And thank you, member Rister. I do think it's important to ground us in August 27th, which was also the day that my kindergartner started school here in Edina. Right. And so as we were celebrating that day, there was also this fear and there was this reminder that today our students have active shooter drills, right? Like that is a reality that I didn't have right as a child. And I do want us to be pragmatic, right? Like I want action. I want something that will take hold. But I think what the mayor said is just so accurate with what we have right now. And that's cities need to lead the way. And I don't think it's leading the way in resolutions. That has to be a part of it. But I think that now is the time for us to put our foot down and say like, this is what is important. And so that's where I want us to have a ordinance that is putting in the stronger safe storage, right? The things that we don't think will be contested. I want us to have an ordinance that is explicitly prohibiting the sale and possession of assault weapons, high capacity magazines, ghost guns, everything that's outlined here. And I think what member Pierce said of 45 days, whatever is normal for our ordinances that we're putting into place. And then let's also have a resolution calling upon the state legislature to lift their preemption. I think that those three things together are really a tight package that I would feel really proud of. Yeah, you were your head of the same work. Because I think we could take our existing resolution and change the resolution provision at the end to just do exactly what you're talking about. I asked the legislature to do all these things that we're requesting in the resolution. So the three prong approach, I think it's a good succinctly put and well put. Thank you. I would adopt that sort of view of it too. Others? Julie, are you still or remember, are you still uncomfortable with? I don't know where I am, but I just I felt like I needed to say that. You know, you'll have a chance to look at things as we go down there. Right. Go ahead. You should be uncomfortable. Like we all should be. If we're it's easy for us to do a resolution and approve that. Right. So if we feel a little uncomfortable with that process, I think that's fine. That's all. And so I'm respecting how you feel. And I'm just saying, I honor that. We should all feel uncomfortable. I know this guy over here does feel uncomfortable with what we're suggesting because. Well, I mean, the effect on the PD is something to think about, but but still. Yeah, that was really well put James. We're a we're a council and a town filled with law-abiding citizens. Yes. And that's why it creates so much discomfort because we want to be doing the right thing upholding the law, but we're really in a situation here where the we think the law is wrong. You just got it wrong. And we're going to we're going to make some racket about it. We're going to tell you we think it's wrong. We're going to do something in our town about it. And if you want to slap our hands on it, go ahead. But we still think it's wrong. And you better take this up when you convene the legislature, whenever that is January, February, we'll be there to tell you we think you're wrong. We'll be there with a bunch of other cities saying you got it all wrong up here. And we'll be there with all of you who'll be there too. I know you will. And you got it wrong. This is our chance to get it right. This is our chance to be a state that leads and doesn't doesn't cowl. It doesn't cower but leads. Doesn't shake their shoulders and resignation and say, well, what are we going to do about it? You know, since Sandy Hook, that's what people are doing. What are we going to do about it? Because everybody is law-abiding at their core. So let's just stand up and say this is just flat wrong. That's what we're all saying, I think, we're trying to figure out how to express it in different ways. Everybody's done a great job of expressing their thoughts, I think. And you, thanks for being here to reinforce us. I'd say too. So I think member Eggle who had it right, three things to do. Member Jackson. If you have additional ideas, please let us know. Yeah, if you've got some research you've done around the country that you've got access to, that would help us craft an ordinance, we'd love to see it. We can do the resolution quickly and get that off to the legislature and the governor. Yeah, I've got to call with two of his staffers for all. I'll tell him what's coming. We're with him on this. Okay, I think we remember Eggle who's sketched out well the pathway. And Mr. Kendall, you can still safely go with these women to the car. Don't stick around. Don't make sure you get there. They hold no animosity. They know that you are opposed to gun violence too. You're just trying to give us good legal advice. Okay, so that enough to work with? It is. I think we've got a good understanding of what you're asking us to prepare. I'm just, we were just looking at our respective calendars. I think we can get this on for your second meeting in November. So it's like November 18th, I believe. We'll use that as sort of our goal to have it ready for you that night. I had a physician friend of mine tell me I think it was after we had that session over at Eddine community Lutheran Church on gun violence. You said, you know, he did a lot of, he was a professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School and did a lot of work on the mesothelioma problems up in the air and range. He said, you know, we don't have any higher incident of mental health problems in this country than they do anywhere else in the world. It's the same all over the world. The data is all the same. We're the only place that kills people or many people, men with mental health problems are killing people with automatic weapons. No where else does it happen? I just had talked to somebody else that was on a trade mission to Ireland and they said they were just appalled over there. They said we haven't lost a child for gun violence for, I don't know, decades maybe since yeah. Okay. We got a plan. Thanks for getting back in front of us, all of you. Thanks to my council members as well. We're off on a grand adventure together. Thank you. Okay. Who will let you figure out how to give us a brand name? All of us together. Edina something, something knows, you know, I don't figure it out. You come up with a good one. Okay. We got some other things to talk about that. Remember, Richard, anything else you want to cover from a council member standpoint? I have received four phone calls and a couple emails about our new policy charging for FOIA requests at $44 an hour. So I want to note that that is something that is being questioned and I am concerned about residents who may not have a lot of money and their ability to get access to the information. And I don't know, I mean, I don't know how many FOIA requests we get. One thing that was noted is maybe it would be possible to put more information on our website if there's something that people are frequently requesting information about. And that individual noted the police reports and the fire reports, if that would be something that people didn't have to individually request. Maybe this is a topic we could discuss next meeting. The other thing is that we have another film festival going on. There's the Twin City Film Festival and you can go to 50th and France. That theater is involved in that as well. It runs through Friday and it really hasn't been given a lot of attention. But, you know, if you're looking for something to do, that could be a really nice thing to do on a cold rainy day. And that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Member Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I've got a couple of different directions to go here. This afternoon, I was part of a call for the city's climate coalition and I talked about this in the work session, but I wanted to let people know. We heard from state agencies that regulate data centers or related to data centers. And they had some really interesting ideas. One is that when people decide that they want to build a data center, it comes very quickly. So I think it'd be interesting to see what all is and we're going to continue the conversation to see what the burden is on cities and what cities reaction should be. They said that there's some creative uses, reuses of water, including capturing the heat for district heating from a data center. Some data centers can use non-peak energy that help manage the load of the electrical circuits or the grid that is surrounding them. And it made me think of our Cahill area plan and that that is some work that I don't want to be forgotten about, that that's still out there. So that's it. The liquor store has had to consolidate their employees and I wanted to tell them that I know this is very difficult and that it's stressful and we're with you. We support you and we don't want you to feel abandoned. It's hard. It's hard to consolidate. We're wearing pink tonight. The high school is putting on mean girls. They're seeing wear a pink on Wednesdays in support of anti-bullying. I just, I think everybody, at all of all ages needs to be aware of what bullying is and that you stand up to bullies and stand up for your friends more importantly. It's the bystanders that empower the bully. And so it isn't just standing up for yourself but standing up for your friends as well. And finally, we've been having lots and lots of conversations about the proposed levy and I want to repeat what I said last time and that is we're sitting in a perfect storm. We've had the property values, especially single family homes have dramatically increased in value because we have a shortage of homes on the market. Shortage is create boosts and price. We've had a shift in the weight of our tax classification. For many years we could increase taxes and single family residences wouldn't feel it because it was absorbed by the commercial sector. And finally, we're facing some generational costs. The cost of street reconstruction, the cost of replacing the pool, pump room. These are things that have reached the end of their useful life, have been maintained very, very well lived beyond their useful life and need to be replaced. And we've hired six new people in the police department. We are absorbing the six firefighters that were hired in 2020 and we're looking at hiring some more and this all costs money and it's coming at a time when single family homeowners are feeling the impact of property taxes much more than they have in the past. So it's a perfect storm we hear you and we are taking this all very seriously. Thank you. Thank you for those thoughts. Remember, Pierce? I think you did something pretty significant. Let off a tough conversation there. And then a really important direction. Thank you. Thanks for that. Yeah. Remember, Agnew. Or tonight. Thank you. A few things. I guess Shelley Lober mentioned that Williams and County Tennessee coming in here tomorrow. I'll be here in the morning. They had an event at Southdale last night for some of the new merchants that were open. I just ran out there with my wife to take a look. They're going to do something I guess more grand in December when all these stores are open and it's really pretty extraordinary what they've done out there. So congratulations to Simon on what's there and what's coming. We had a good MLC meeting today around housing. We talked about that upstairs a little bit. Some of you may notice they're starting to run. A test runs on the green line with some of their rail cars. And so at some point in time we'll maybe have a chance to go for a short ride on the green line extension. And then last. What was that? Saturday night or Friday night. We had my wife and I attended the Minnesota military appreciation fund. It was Friday, Friday, October 17th. Denny Scholsted, who's been such a generous resident. Some of the sculptures out at Centennial Lakes, invited us to join him at his table. The Minnesota military appreciation fund raises funds to help families who are national guard members and family are deployed overseas and they don't. You know sometimes their employers continue to pay them. Mostly they don't I think. And so they provide funding support for some of these families. Great. A couple of keynote speakers, two four star generals, both retired, one recently retired. Joe Votel, who was in two totally different personalities. Joe Votel retired some time ago now. Four star Army General. He was a former commander of US Central Command, but he was also chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And it's from Minnesota lives in the Twin Cities area. And then a guy from Milk River is a just retired four star general from Centcom named Michael Carilla. And he was a main key knowter and gave a really interesting speech about the I would say you know Centennial Command, their primary area of emphasis is the Middle East. And so he talked about what he called a twilight war that we've had for going on for 40 years of their run. And that was all really fascinating stuff. And then he was a big burly guy. Joe Votel was a stint little wispy guy. He looked like a college froth. And then the other guy was this big look like a football lineman. And he told a great story on himself when he was a kid, they'd go up on Elk River on the river up there. In the springtime he went down to the river with his dog and the ice was starting to move out. And so he took a big rod and broke a big chunk of ice off and got on it like hookfin with his dog and went downstream on that with a paddle on an ice flow. And he said every house he went by, the people were out calling the police. And they picked him up downstream somewhere. So that gives you an idea of what kind of an adventurous spirit he has. So that was quite an event. And thanks for letting us participate in it. And Leonard Blum was there, a Missy Blum who lived over on the west side. And he had his little, I didn't have my glasses on. I was trying to see what he had on. He had his little blue Special Forces pin. And they said, Leonard, what is that? He said, oh, it's my Special Forces pin. And he was really humble about that as well. Anyway, and his great story about his daughter who grew up in he died and went to Harvard, worked on Wall Street, didn't like it. And now she's in the Navy and she's in cyber warfare. And she sits on a ship with a signed group of Army, or Navy Seals. And she controls all their electronics from the ship whether they're doing their work on shore or going toward shore and back and forth. Anyway, some fascinating stuff happening over there at the Minnesota Military Appreciation Fund, annual dinner, and a lot of generous people there as well. So that's it for me. It rattled on a little bit too long. And that caused anybody else to think of anything? Remember Jackson? October 30th. We have a grand opening of our new fire station number two from four to eight, I believe. An observation. Yeah, don't forget, please come by and see it. Okay. And we'll continue to work on the budget towards making a final budget determination in December. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. And a motion by member Jackson, second by member appears to adjourn the meeting of the D'Dane City Council. This Wednesday, October 22nd, 2025 at 948 PM. Any further discussion? All in favor of adjournment say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. We stand adjourned.